CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Moher D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2844943 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Moher David D Hopewell Sally S Schulz Kenneth F KF Montori Victor V Gøtzsche Peter C PC Devereaux P J PJ Elbourne Diana D Egger Matthias M Altman Douglas G DG
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20100323
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2844794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement, updated in March 2010, includes a 25-item checklist and flow diagram. Adherence to this statement is a minimum requirement for the complete, clear, and transparent reporting of randomized trials. We translated the CONSORT 2010 Statement into Korean to promote the widespread adherence to CONSORT in South Korea and to facilitate the adoption of complete, clear, and transparent reporting. The Korean version of the CONSORT is available at http://www.e-epih.org/.
| S-EPMC4371386 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6225589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently.MethodsFollowing a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram.ResultsCONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting.ConclusionsThe CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website ( www.consort-statement.org ) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.
| S-EPMC6066913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of conferences and journal articles related to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. Here, we extend the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement to develop a minimum list of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting the results of a RCT in any journal or conference abstract.Methods and findingsWe generated a list of items from existing quality assessment tools and empirical evidence. A three-round, modified-Delphi process was used to select items. In all, 109 participants were invited to participate in an electronic survey; the response rate was 61%. Survey results were presented at a meeting of the CONSORT Group in Montebello, Canada, January 2007, involving 26 participants, including clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical editors. Checklist items were discussed for eligibility into the final checklist. The checklist was then revised to ensure that it reflected discussions held during and subsequent to the meeting. CONSORT for Abstracts recommends that abstracts relating to RCTs have a structured format. Items should include details of trial objectives; trial design (e.g., method of allocation, blinding/masking); trial participants (i.e., description, numbers randomized, and number analyzed); interventions intended for each randomized group and their impact on primary efficacy outcomes and harms; trial conclusions; trial registration name and number; and source of funding. We recommend the checklist be used in conjunction with this explanatory document, which includes examples of good reporting, rationale, and evidence, when available, for the inclusion of each item.ConclusionsCONSORT for Abstracts aims to improve reporting of abstracts of RCTs published in journal articles and conference proceedings. It will help authors of abstracts of these trials provide the detail and clarity needed by readers wishing to assess a trial's validity and the applicability of its results.
| S-EPMC2211558 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8082311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are key in the development of novel therapies, with their findings directly informing subsequent clinical development phases and providing valuable insights for reverse translation. Comprehensive and transparent reporting of these studies is critical for their accurate and critical interpretation, which may improve and expedite therapeutic development. However, quality of reporting of design characteristics and results from EPDF trials is often variable and incomplete. The international consensus-based CONSORT-DEFINE (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Dose-finding Extension) statement, an extension of the CONSORT statement for randomised trials, was developed to improve the reporting of EPDF trials. The CONSORT-DEFINE statement introduced 21 new items and modified 19 existing CONSORT items.This CONSORT-DEFINE Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document provides important information to enhance understanding and facilitate the implementation of the CONSORT-DEFINE checklist. For each new or modified checklist item, we provide a detailed description and its rationale with supporting evidence, and present examples from EPDF trial reports published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. When reporting the results of EPDF trials, authors are encouraged to consult the CONSORT-DEFINE E&E document, together with the CONSORT and CONSORT-DEFINE statement papers, and adhere to their recommendations. Widespread adoption of the CONSORT-DEFINE statement is likely to enhance the reporting quality of EPDF trials, thus facilitating the peer review of such studies and their appraisal by researchers, regulators, ethics committee members, and funders.FundingThis work is a further extension of the CONSORT-DEFINE study, which was funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme (MR/T044934/1). The Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU) receives programmatic infrastructure funding from Cancer Research UK (C1491/A25351; CTUQQR-Dec 22/100 004), which has contributed to accelerating the advancement and successful completion of this work.
| S-EPMC11773258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.
| S-EPMC5128957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.
| S-EPMC7360025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence of the primary research designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, if RCTs are incompletely reported, the methodological rigor with which they were conducted cannot be reliably evaluated and it may not be possible to replicate the intervention. Missing information also may limit the reader's ability to evaluate the external validity of a trial. Reporting guidelines are available for clinical trials in human healthcare (CONSORT), livestock populations (REFLECT), and preclinical experimental research involving animals (ARRIVE 2.0). The PetSORT guidelines complement these existing guidelines, providing recommendations for reporting controlled trials in pet dogs and cats. The rationale and scientific background are explained for each of the 25 items in the PetSORT reporting recommendations checklist, with examples from well-reported trials.
| S-EPMC10103631 | biostudies-literature